![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yet another dimension to my geekiness
Sep. 3rd, 2004 05:09 pmHere's a strange confession: I like reading Supreme Court decisions. I've had the opportunity to do a bit of legal research as part of this dissertation, because the US Supreme Court has issued several rulings on the legality of various gerrymandering efforts, including a recent decision (Vieth v. Jubelirer, 2004) which concerned my case study directly.
The way that Supreme Court cases are reported in the press gave me the idea that their decision was very cut and dried - majority rules, judgement given, end of story. But that is not how it really works. The actual ruling is a much more layered, nuanced document, comprising a series of opinions written by different justices. The majority opinion is written by one of the justices who voted with the majority (usually the highest-ranking justice, often the Chief Justice). Other justices who voted with the majority may write concurring opinions, which can elaborate their reasons for ruling the way they did, & might also explain where they disagree with the majority opinion. The justices who voted with the minority can write dissenting opinions to explain their decision. All of these opinions seem to be written in tandem, because they refer to one another quite freely, & answer arguments & conclusions drawn by the other authors. In a strange way, it's like reading a transcript of a very educated, polite disagreement amongst scholars (which, I suppose, is exactly what it is). The interesting thing is, all of the opinions - majority, concurring, & dissenting - can be used to demonstrate precedence by attorneys & judges in future cases. This means that it is very rare for a ruling to completely close the book on all aspects of any given case. The Court may be unanimous or nearly unanimous on certain aspects of the issue, but acrimoniously divided on others.
Couched in the elegant prose of legal writing, they bash at each other when their opinions conflict (I had to look up one Latin phrase, ipse dixit, which seemed to translate to a polite version of "bullshit"). Compared to the engineering/science writing I normally read, legal writing seems to have more latitude for the descriptive turn of phrase. An irregularly shaped district, described by a GIS academian as "non-compact", is described by the justices as "bizarre", "absurd", or "uncouth". Justice Kennedy was quite free with making up words as well, describing Congressional districts in Indiana as "nonequipopulous". There is also a refreshing focus on the Real in the Supreme Court decisions. The justices continually bring their discussions back around to the root questions - "Is this fair? Is this just? Is this good?" It was a nice break from staring at columns of numeric data & maps covered with absurd, uncouth, red-and-blue squiggly shapes.
The way that Supreme Court cases are reported in the press gave me the idea that their decision was very cut and dried - majority rules, judgement given, end of story. But that is not how it really works. The actual ruling is a much more layered, nuanced document, comprising a series of opinions written by different justices. The majority opinion is written by one of the justices who voted with the majority (usually the highest-ranking justice, often the Chief Justice). Other justices who voted with the majority may write concurring opinions, which can elaborate their reasons for ruling the way they did, & might also explain where they disagree with the majority opinion. The justices who voted with the minority can write dissenting opinions to explain their decision. All of these opinions seem to be written in tandem, because they refer to one another quite freely, & answer arguments & conclusions drawn by the other authors. In a strange way, it's like reading a transcript of a very educated, polite disagreement amongst scholars (which, I suppose, is exactly what it is). The interesting thing is, all of the opinions - majority, concurring, & dissenting - can be used to demonstrate precedence by attorneys & judges in future cases. This means that it is very rare for a ruling to completely close the book on all aspects of any given case. The Court may be unanimous or nearly unanimous on certain aspects of the issue, but acrimoniously divided on others.
Couched in the elegant prose of legal writing, they bash at each other when their opinions conflict (I had to look up one Latin phrase, ipse dixit, which seemed to translate to a polite version of "bullshit"). Compared to the engineering/science writing I normally read, legal writing seems to have more latitude for the descriptive turn of phrase. An irregularly shaped district, described by a GIS academian as "non-compact", is described by the justices as "bizarre", "absurd", or "uncouth". Justice Kennedy was quite free with making up words as well, describing Congressional districts in Indiana as "nonequipopulous". There is also a refreshing focus on the Real in the Supreme Court decisions. The justices continually bring their discussions back around to the root questions - "Is this fair? Is this just? Is this good?" It was a nice break from staring at columns of numeric data & maps covered with absurd, uncouth, red-and-blue squiggly shapes.
